Scootin' to Prison?

No, not me. I'm not going all Andy Dufresne on you. Rather, I was thinking of the I. (Scooter) Lewis Libby (lotta handles for a preppie) verdict. For those who don't follow these kinds of things, here's the Cliff's Notes version:

1. Bush was staring through the looking glass for reasons to invade Iraq.
   
   
2. Through a series of forged letters, he came to believe that Iraq had obtained yellow cake, which can be processed into enriched uranium which can eventually be turned into the kind of uranium used in nuclear power plants or bombs.
   
   
3. The CIA had heard about these stories and sent a former African Ambassador, Joe Wilson to check it out. Funny story--it was all bullshit.
   
   
4. In his State of the Union address, which was vetted by then CIA Director (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) George Tenant, Bush used the yellow cake as evidence of WMD in Iraq.
   
   
5. Mr. Wilson was upset by this and unleashed his tongue in a New York Times opinion piece that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to support the case to go to Iraq (you don't say?).
   
   
6. Veep Cheney, outraged that anyone would have the balls to challenge his desire to go to war decides that he has to trash Wilson. For some reason, he decides the best way to do this is to ruin Valerie Plame's (Wilson's wife) career as a covert CIA agent. Read that again--Cheney wants to fuck with Wilson, so he outs an undercover CIA agent. Oh, and her specialty in the CIA? WMDs--you know, the stuff we're trying to keep out of the terrorists' hands. Don't want too many of them doing their jobs.
   
   
7. How does Cheney go about this? First, he implies that the whole thing is a boondoggle for Wilson setup by his wife. OK, I know nothing of the Wilson/Plame marriage. But I'm thinking if a trip to Niger is considered a boondoggle, they need some serious counseling. Second, he and his aides (particularly Karl Rove and Lewis) and the State Department (Richard Armitage) start leaking her name and what she does to the media (I'll get to them later). Robert Novak then blows Plame's cover in his column.
   
   
8. As it turns out, and I'm sure you'll be shocked by this, it's illegal to blow the cover of a CIA agent. Go figure. However, the law is not as cut-and-dried as you would think. The Justice Department decides that this needs to be investigated and they put Patrick Fitzgerald on the case.
   
   
9. As a result of a grand jury investigation, none of the leakers are indicted. However, Scooter is indicted for lying about what he knew when. Despite using the normally effective Steve Martin defense (I forgot....), he was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts.

There's tons about this episode that gall me. Starting with the obvious, Bush et al can't stand to be criticized. No surprise there. The extent that it bugs them and the pettiness to it is way over the top.

A big issue during the grand jury proceedings was whether journalists, such as Judith Miller and Tim Russert (what about Novak?) should have to provide information about who their "anonymous" sources are. The standard journalistic claim is that if reporters can't keep the confidentiality of their sources, knowledgeable people in the government won't spill their guts because of fear of retribution. OK, let's buy that argument for a minute. Ms. Miller was a reporter for the New York Times when Plame was outed. One of her big scoops in 2001 and 2002 was detailing how Iraq had stockpiled WMDs. Those stories were based on discredited Iraqi dissidents. But, it's not hard to see how they made her a favorite in the administration. This would allow her to develop sources for other stories. And, it may be the case that she could not have researched this story (note that she never wrote about it) or others without having these anonymous sources.

Now for the flip side of anonymity. Is someone more likely to spin (ok, lie about) a story if he knows he will remain anonymous? I'm sure that journalists need to weigh this every day. But, for an administration that's so fast and loose with the truth, why go to the mat (and Ms. Miller spent about two months in jail over this) for someone who's blowing smoke up your ass? If we're talking about whistle-blowers, I'm in favor of the anonymity, but a member of the government who's a witness to a potential crime? I'm not buying it.

Since the announcement of the verdict, Libby's lawyers have (predictably) announced that they'll go for a new trial or an appeal. In the meantime, his legal team may be angling for a pardon, like Bush the First gave to Caspar Weinberger, one of the Iran-Contra wheelers and dealers. An interesting tidbit about Mr. Libby: before joining the Bush administration, he represented Marc Rich (a very rich tax cheat whose wife was a big donor to Clinton and the Democratic party) when he successfully petitioned Clinton for a pardon. I'm sure he'll be able to put that experience to work now.

One last thing about Mr. Lewis is that he's an author of a book called The Apprentice (ranked #5,147 on Amazon and let's say that the online reviews are less than kind).

Is there a moral to all of this? Of course (sorta): First, in Washington, the cover-up always bites you in the ass more than the crime (regardless of who committed the crime). Second, big media is way more interested in protecting their sources (and the perks that come with access) than reporting the truth. Keep that in mind next time you're asked to trust an anonymous source.